THE LIGHTHOUSEthe lighthouse
--:--:--UTC --:--
← Deep Dive

Mind, Self, and Existence

A deep dive into the machinery of experience — and the strange discovery that the experiencer may not be there

Tag legend: (established) — broad scientific or scholarly consensus · (contested) — live debate among serious experts · (speculative) — a coherent but unproven extrapolation · (mystical-tradition) — a claim native to a contemplative or esoteric lineage, true within its frame · (fringe) — outside mainstream support, included because it makes internal sense.

Prologue: the room you have never left

You have never once touched the world.

Not literally. The chair you are sitting on, the light in the room, the warmth of a hand — none of it reaches you directly. What reaches you is a storm of electrochemical pulses arriving on the dark, silent, sealed interior of the skull, which has never seen a photon and never will. Inside that bone vault, in perpetual blackness, something builds a world: vivid, colored, full of depth and sound and the felt sense of being here, now, as someone. The world you live in is not the world. It is a model of the world, rendered so seamlessly that you mistake the map for the territory every waking second.

This is the first vertigo. The four threads of this document each pull on it from a different direction:

  1. The self is a construct — the "you" at the center is itself part of the rendering.
  2. Perception is a controlled hallucination — the rendering is a guess, not a recording.
  3. Consciousness is the hard problem — nobody knows why any of this is lit up from the inside at all.
  4. The split soul seeks itself — across millennia, humans have intuited that the felt aloneness of the construct is a fracture, and that wholeness lies in a reunion.

Watch for the recurring architecture beneath all four: the One and the Many (a unity that fragments into a self and a world, and longs to return); the Void that is also Fullness (the empty center of the self that nonetheless contains everything); death and rebirth (the ego that must dissolve to be remade); consciousness as ground versus emergent; as-above-so-below (the micro-drama of one mind echoing the macro-drama of cosmos); and the coincidence of opposites (self and other, masculine and feminine, the two who were one). These are not four topics. They are one shape seen from four angles.

I. The Self as Construct — the throne is empty

The thing you are most certain of

There is nothing you seem to know more intimately than that you exist, as a single, continuous someone, behind the eyes, owning these thoughts. And yet this is precisely the claim that the deepest contemplatives of the East and the sharpest empiricists of the West independently dismantled — arriving, by utterly different roads, at the same shocking destination: there is no one there.

Anatta: the Buddha's surgical strike (mystical-tradition / established within the tradition)

Twenty-five centuries ago the Buddha taught anattā (Pali; Sanskrit anātman) — "not-self." His method was not mystical assertion but something closer to forensic dissection. Take the person apart into the five aggregates (pañca-khandha): form (the body), sensation (raw feeling-tone), perception (recognition), mental formations (volitions, habits, the will), and consciousness (bare awareness). Now go looking, among these five swirling, impermanent streams, for the owner — the self that has them. You will not find it. Each aggregate is in ceaseless flux; none is permanent; none can be commanded ("let my body not age," "let this feeling stay") and so none is truly mine in the way a self would require. The self, the Buddhist analysis concludes, is a conceptual label stuck onto the interplay of impermanent parts — like the word "chariot," which names an assemblage of wheels and axle and yoke but is not a thing found in addition to them. (1000-Word Philosophy, Philosophy Break)

Note the structure: the self is the One that turns out to be Many — a bundle mistaken for a unity. And note the soteriology: liberation (nirvana) comes precisely from seeing through the self, from the dissolution of the very thing we cling to hardest. This is the death-and-rebirth motif at the most intimate possible scale. The ego is not killed; it is seen to have never been born.

Hume's bundle: the same knife, in Edinburgh (established)

In 1739, with no knowledge of Buddhism, the Scottish empiricist David Hume reached for the same scalpel. "For my part," he wrote, "when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other... I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception." Look inward for the self and you find only the contents — a sensation here, a thought there, a flicker of mood — never the container. The self, Hume concluded, is a bundle of perceptions in perpetual flux, bound together by habit and memory into the fiction of a continuous "I." (Hume, Buddhism, and Personal Identity, Heart Led Sounds)

That two minds separated by 2,300 years and the entire breadth of Eurasia, using introspection and argument rather than scripture, arrived at the same answer is one of the quiet astonishments of intellectual history. (established that both held this view; contested whether they mean exactly the same thing — Hume sought personal identity's logical grounds; the Buddha sought the end of suffering — but the convergence is real.)

The narrative self and the ego-tunnel: the modern verdict (established / contested)

Modern cognitive science has, if anything, deepened the indictment. Daniel Dennett's multiple drafts model holds that there is no inner theater, no "Cartesian stage" where consciousness happens and a self sits watching. Instead the brain runs many parallel, competing interpretations of events, and the "self" is a useful fiction — a center of narrative gravity, like the center of gravity of a physical object: real as an abstraction, predictive and indispensable, but not a thing you could locate or hold. We tell a story in which a protagonist persists through time, and that protagonist is the self. (The decentralised self)

The philosopher-neuroscientist Thomas Metzinger sharpened this into one of the most radical claims in contemporary philosophy of mind. In Being No One (2003) and The Ego Tunnel (2009) he argues, flatly, that no such thing as a self exists — that "nobody ever had or was a self." What exists is a phenomenal self-model (PSM): an internal image the brain builds of the organism as a whole, embedded in the world. The catch — and this is the genius of the idea — is that the model is transparent. We do not experience it as a model, the way we know a photograph is a photograph. We look through it, as through a clean window, and so we mistake the representation for a reality. Metzinger calls the lived result the Ego Tunnel: a low-dimensional projection of an unimaginably richer reality, a tunnel through the world whose walls we mistake for the world itself, with a self at the center that is "merely a complex physical event — an activation pattern in the central nervous system." (The Ego Tunnel — SAND, Being No One)

Here the Void-that-is-Fullness thread surfaces in cognitive science: the center of the self is empty — there is no homunculus, no ghost — and yet from that emptiness a complete, inhabited, vividly real world is generated. The throne room of the self is, on inspection, unoccupied; and the kingdom is governed perfectly anyway.

The hidden architecture. Notice that the self as construct is the One-and-the-Many played on the smallest stage. The felt unity ("I") is an emergent simplification of a multiplicity (aggregates, perceptions, neural drafts). The construct is useful — an organism needs a model of itself to act, plan, and protect a body — but it is a tool that mistook itself for a master. Every tradition that asks you to "die before you die," every psychonaut chasing ego-dissolution, every philosopher dissolving the homunculus, is circling this single insight from a different vector.

II. Perception as Controlled Hallucination — the world is a guess

The brain is a prediction engine, not a camera

If the self is a construct, so is the world it inhabits — and by the same mechanism. The dominant framework in computational neuroscience today is predictive processing (also "the Bayesian brain," "the free-energy principle," "active inference"). Its claim, now broadly accepted in cognitive science (established as the leading framework; contested in its strongest interpretations**)**, inverts the naïve picture of perception. We imagine perception as bottom-up: light hits the eye, signals flow inward, and a picture assembles in the mind like an image developing in a darkroom. Predictive processing says the dominant flow runs the other way. The brain is constantly generating predictions — top-down hypotheses about what is causing its sensory input — and what actually flows upward from the senses is mostly prediction error: the residual, the surprise, the difference between what the brain expected and what it got. Perception is the brain's best current hypothesis about the hidden causes of its sensations, continually corrected by error. (Anil Seth — CCCB Lab, 80,000 Hours podcast)

Anil Seth's phrase: "a controlled hallucination" (established framing, vivid coinage)

The neuroscientist Anil Seth gave this its unforgettable formulation: perception is a "controlled hallucination." When you see a coffee cup, you are not receiving the cup — you are generating a cup, a top-down construction that your sensory data happens to keep in check. The word "controlled" is doing immense work. It means the hallucination is reined in by the world: the predictions are leashed to their causes through the senses. (Philosophy Now, Biology Insights)

Seth's most penetrating move is to erase the bright line between perception and hallucination. They are not two categories but one continuum. "We're all hallucinating all the time," he says; "when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality." Clinical hallucination is simply the case where the brain's predictions have lost their grip on their causes in the world — the top-down model running free, no longer corrected by the bottom-up leash. Dreaming is uncontrolled hallucination; waking perception is hallucination held on a tight rein by sensory error. The difference is one of control, not of kind. (Biology Insights, This Is Your Brain)

Color is the cleanest demonstration. There is no redness in a photon; there is only wavelength. "Red" is something the brain paints onto the world — a useful fiction the visual system uses to tag certain surface reflectances. The lushness of your visual field, its color and solidity and presence, is a property of the model, not of the physics. As-above-so-below again: just as the self is a transparent model mistaken for a self, the world is a transparent model mistaken for the world. Same trick, two scales.

The binding problem — how the many become one scene (contested)

Here a deep puzzle intrudes, and it rhymes exactly with the self-problem. Your brain processes color in one region, motion in another, shape in another, sound somewhere else entirely, on slightly different time delays — and yet you experience one unified scene: a single red ball, moving, bouncing, now. How are these scattered processes bound into one coherent moment of experience? This is the binding problem (contested — proposed solutions include neural synchrony, where binding rides on oscillations around 40 Hz, but none is settled**)**. The binding problem is the One-and-the-Many raised inside the skull: a multiplicity of distributed computations somehow yields the felt unity of a single conscious "now." The self problem and the binding problem are siblings — both ask how manyness produces the experience of oneness, and neither has a clean answer.

The predictive self closes the loop (established framing)

The deepest twist: the self is just another thing the brain predicts. Your sense of being a bounded body, of owning your hand, of feeling your heart beat from within — Seth calls this the perception of being a self, and it is built from the same predictive machinery, especially interoception (the brain's model of the body's internal state). In VR experiments, the felt boundary of the body can be moved, illusions of body-ownership induced, the self-model tugged out of joint — demonstrating that selfhood is a controlled hallucination too. (CCCB Lab) The construct of Section I and the hallucination of Section II are the same construction, applied once to the world and once to the one who seems to perceive it.

The hidden architecture. Reality, as you live it, is a negotiated guess — a hallucination the world keeps voting on. This is the Void-and-Fullness at the heart of cognition: the brain, sealed in darkness, fabricates fullness. It also reframes the coincidence of opposites — "real" and "hallucinated" are not opposites but the two ends of a single dial labeled control. And it sets up the hardest question of all, which Sections I and II have been circling without naming: granted that the brain builds a model — why is the model lit up from the inside? Why is there something it is like to be the model?

III. Consciousness — the hard problem and the contest of grounds

The crack the whole edifice cannot cross (established as a problem)

Predictive processing can explain, in principle, every function of the brain: discrimination, integration, report, control of behavior. These David Chalmers named the "easy problems" — easy not because they are simple but because we know what a solution would look like (a mechanism). The hard problem is different in kind: why is any of this accompanied by subjective experience at all? Why is there something it is like to see red, rather than mere wavelength-processing in the dark? Why doesn't all this information-processing happen "in the dark," with no inner light? You could imagine a being functionally identical to you — same words, same behavior — but with nobody home, a "philosophical zombie." That this is even conceivable is the hard problem's barb: experience seems to be an extra fact over and above all the functions. (Hard problem of consciousness — Wikipedia)

The hard problem is where the consciousness-as-ground-vs-emergent thread becomes a battlefield. The contenders:

Physicalism / emergentism (established as mainstream, contested as complete)

Consciousness is what certain physical processes do; it emerges from sufficiently complex, integrated neural activity the way wetness emerges from H₂O molecules. On this view the hard problem is a temporary confusion that better neuroscience will dissolve. Critics (Chalmers among them) reply that wetness is functionally explicable — it just is molecular behavior described at a higher level — whereas experience seems to resist any such reduction: you can fully describe the function and the question "but why is it felt?" still stands, untouched. This is the explanatory gap.

Panpsychism (contested, recently respectable)

If you cannot get experience out of matter, perhaps it was in matter all along. Panpsychism holds that consciousness — in some primitive, minimal form ("proto-experience") — is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality, like mass or charge, present even in the simplest constituents. Complex minds are then built by combining simple experiential atoms, not by conjuring experience from non-experience. Chalmers takes it seriously; he describes his own view as "naturalistic dualism" but notes panpsychism is, in a sense, a form of physicalism — it just makes the physical intrinsically experiential. Its great unsolved wound is the combination problem: how do tiny "micro-experiences" combine into a single unified human mind? (Notice: the combination problem is the binding problem and the One-and-the-Many wearing a metaphysical mask.) (Hard problem — Wikipedia, Panpsychism and dualism — ScienceDirect)

Integrated Information Theory (contested)

IIT, developed by Giulio Tononi (with Christof Koch), takes a radical formal stance: consciousness simply is integrated information — quantified as Φ (phi), a measure of how much a system's whole exceeds and binds its parts (information that is irreducible to the parts taken separately). Any system with non-zero Φ has some experience; the more integrated and differentiated, the richer the consciousness. This makes IIT a cousin of panpsychism — it implies even simple systems are minimally conscious — and it directly attacks the binding problem by making integration itself the substance of mind. Chalmers calls it "a development in the right direction, whether or not it is correct." Critics (notably Scott Aaronson) note it implies certain large but inert systems — even a grid of logic gates — would be highly conscious, which strikes many as a reductio. (IIT — Wikipedia, Philosophy Now — IIT, Scientific American)

Idealism (contested / mystical-tradition)

The boldest inversion: rather than struggling to get mind out of matter, idealism proposes that mind is the ground and matter the derivative. Consciousness is not produced by the universe; the universe appears within consciousness. On objective idealism / cosmopsychism, a single field of awareness is fundamental, and individual minds are localizations of it — dissociated whirlpools in one ocean. Its defenders claim it sidesteps both the hard problem (no need to derive experience from non-experience — experience is the starting point) and the combination problem (you don't build the One from many micro-minds; the One is primary and the many are its dissociations). This is consciousness-as-ground in its purest scientific-philosophical dress — and it lands a hair's breadth from the mystical-tradition claim that all is one Mind (Vedanta's Brahman, the Kabbalist's Ein Sof, the Tao). (Hard problem — Wikipedia)

The brain on the edge of dissolution — ego death as data (established findings, contested interpretation)

There is an empirical window into all of this. The Default Mode Network (DMN) — a set of brain regions most active during self-referential thought, mind-wandering, autobiographical memory, the rumination of "me and my story" — appears to be the neural correlate of the narrative self. Robin Carhart-Harris's Entropic Brain theory (2014) proposed that psychedelics work by disintegrating the DMN, raising the brain's entropy — its disorder, flexibility, unpredictability — and that the felt result is ego-dissolution: "a relaxation of subject-object distinctions during which the borders and constraints of the self seem to dissolve." Crucially, the hypothesis runs the other way too: it is through the DMN's self-organized, entropy-minimizing activity that a coherent ego normally emerges in the first place. Dial down the network and the self loosens; dial it to zero and, for some, the self vanishes entirely into a boundless, oceanic unity. (Entropic Brain — Frontiers, Ego Dissolution — MIND Blog, Neural correlates of LSD — PNAS)

This is the most literal possible vindication of every claim in Sections I–II: the self is a constructed pattern (the DMN's self-model), it can be taken apart (ego dissolution), and what is reported when it dissolves is precisely the One — the loss of the boundary between self and world, the experience of merging back into a unity. The mystics' "death of the ego" and the neuroscientist's "DMN disintegration" turn out to be the same event described in two vocabularies. Death-and-rebirth, measured on an fMRI.

The hidden architecture. Stack the four metaphysical positions and a strange ladder appears, rising from Many toward One: physicalism (mind from many particles) → panpsychism (mind in the particles, struggling to combine) → IIT (mind as the integration, the binding made fundamental) → idealism (mind as the single ground, the Many as its dissociation). Each step gives more priority to unity and to consciousness-as-ground. And the empirical data — ego dissolution dropping you into oceanic oneness — leans, suggestively, toward the top of that ladder. None of this is proven. But the direction the deepest inquiries point is the same direction the mystics always pointed: toward the One, and toward consciousness as the floor, not the furniture.

IV. Existence — meaning in a universe that doesn't supply it

Grant the previous three sections their full weight. The self is a construct; the world is a guess; consciousness is an unexplained light. Now the existential question arrives with full force: so what do you DO with a life lived inside a self-model, in a hallucinated world, lit by a consciousness no one can explain — and bounded, at both ends, by a void? This is the terrain of existentialism, and it is less a doctrine than a confrontation.

Kierkegaard: the leap into the void (mystical-tradition / established)

Søren Kierkegaard stood at the edge first. For him the human is a creature suspended over an abyss, and the defining experience is angst — not fear of any particular thing, but the dizziness of freedom itself, the vertigo of standing before infinite possibility with no ground beneath. His response was the leap of faith: a conscious, passionate commitment to the infinite (for him, God) made precisely because it cannot be rationally secured — embracing the "absurd," the contradiction, rather than waiting for a proof that will never come. Meaning is not discovered lying about in the world; it is forged in a subjective, all-in relationship with what exceeds reason. (Eternalised — The Absurd, Existentialism and the meaning of life)

Sartre: existence precedes essence (established)

Jean-Paul Sartre secularized the abyss and pushed it to its furthest edge. "Existence precedes essence": there is no blueprint, no human nature handed down, no purpose written into you before you arrive. You exist first — thrown, unjustified — and only then, through your choices, do you create what you are. This is radical freedom, and Sartre insists it is also a sentence: we are "condemned to be free." There is no hiding behind nature, God, society, or circumstance; every value you live by is one you have, by your choosing, authored — and to pretend otherwise (to claim "I had no choice," "this is just how I am") is bad faith, a lie the self-model tells to escape the terror of its own unbounded responsibility. The blank canvas of Section I's empty self becomes, in Sartre, the very source of dignity: because no one is home to dictate your essence, you get to write it. (Sartre vs Camus)

Camus: the absurd, and revolt (established)

Albert Camus named the core collision the Absurd: not a property of the universe alone, nor of the human alone, but of their meeting — the human heart's relentless demand for meaning crashing against a silent, indifferent cosmos that returns no answer. Given the Absurd, Camus saw three responses, and he rejected two. Physical suicide — escaping existence — he refused as a surrender. Philosophical suicide — Kierkegaard's leap, religion, any move that manufactures a meaning to fill the silence — he refused as a dishonest dodge, an evasion that "contorts the absurd" rather than facing it. What remains is the third: revolt. Live consciously, in full view of the meaninglessness, refusing both despair and false comfort — and find in that lucid defiance a fierce, unsentimental joy. "One must imagine Sisyphus happy": the man condemned to roll his boulder forever, who owns his fate and finds the struggle itself enough to fill a heart. The void is not denied and not capitulated to; it is stared down, and a life is built in front of it anyway. (Play For Thoughts — Camus, Eternalised — The Absurd)

The hidden architecture. Existentialism is the Void-and-Fullness thread lived as a human posture. The void is real — no essence, no cosmic meaning, no ground. And yet from that very emptiness, fullness is generated: not found but made, through the leap (Kierkegaard), through authorship (Sartre), or through revolt (Camus). It is the exact same structure as the empty-throne self that nonetheless governs a whole world, and the dark sealed brain that nonetheless paints a vivid reality. The void is not the enemy of meaning; it is the blank page meaning requires. And there is one more move available, which existentialism gestures toward but the next section names outright: if the deepest ache of the bounded, constructed self is its separateness — its aloneness in the tunnel — then perhaps meaning is not only authored alone but found in reunion.

V. The Split Soul and the Mirror — union as the cure for the construct

Aristophanes' myth: we were whole, and we were cut (mystical-tradition / classical)

In Plato's Symposium (c. 385–370 BCE), the comic playwright Aristophanes is given the most haunting speech on love ever written. Once, he says, humans were not as they are now. We were round, doubled beings — four arms, four legs, two faces on one head — and there were three sexes: male-male (children of the sun), female-female (children of the earth), and the androgyne, male-female joined (children of the moon). We were powerful and proud, and in our pride we threatened the gods. So Zeus, rather than destroy us, cut each of us in two, "as one cuts an egg with a hair," and turned our faces toward the wound so we would never forget. Ever since, each half wanders the earth seeking its lost other, and when two halves find each other they fall into one another's arms and will not let go — for what love is, Aristophanes says, is the name for the desire and pursuit of the whole. (Greeker than the Greeks, Dr. Amanda Noelle)

This is the One-and-the-Many told as a love story. The original unity is fractured into duality; the duality aches for return; and eros — desire — is the gravitational force of the fragment toward its source. It is also, structurally, the same myth as the self: a felt aloneness, a primordial cut, a longing for a wholeness remembered but lost. The modern twin-flame idea descends directly from this speech: one soul split into two bodies, each the other's mirror, drawn across lifetimes toward reunion. (mystical-tradition / fringe as a literal metaphysical claim; classical and established as a lineage — the New Age twin-flame discourse is a genuine, traceable descendant of Plato.)

The coniunctio: the alchemical wedding (mystical-tradition / established as history of ideas)

The Hermetic alchemists carried the same shape into the laboratory. At the heart of the Great Work stood the coniunctio — the "chemical wedding," the union of opposites: King and Queen, Sol and Luna (Sun and Moon), Sulphur and Mercury, Rex and Regina, sometimes literally a King and Queen depicted in sacred marriage, even in the bath, even in death-and-rebirth. From their union is born the philosopher's stone — or its living emblem, the Rebis, the divine androgyne, a single body with two heads, male and female, the opposites reconciled in one. The alchemists believed they were transmuting metals; the deeper reading is that they were enacting, in symbol, the marriage of the soul's own divided halves. (Hermeticism and Twin Flames, The Hermaphrodite — divine androgyny)

Here the death-and-rebirth and coincidence-of-opposites threads fuse: in the alchemical sequence the King and Queen often must die and putrefy (the nigredo, the blackening) before they can be reborn united. The union of opposites is not a gentle blending; it passes through a dissolution — an ego death — exactly as the contemplative traditions and the entropic-brain data both insist. To unite, the two must first come undone.

Jung: the coniunctio is happening inside you (contested / established within depth psychology)

Carl Jung's final great work, Mysterium Coniunctionis (1955–56, completed in his 81st year), reads the entire alchemical corpus as a projection of the unconscious. The alchemists, gazing into their flasks, were really watching their own psyches; the coniunctio is the central drama of what Jung called individuation — the lifelong process of becoming whole by integrating the opposites within. Chief among them: the anima (the unconscious feminine in a man) and the animus (the unconscious masculine in a woman), which must be met, related to, and integrated rather than projected outward onto other people. The goal is the Self — the total, reconciled psyche, whose perfect symbol is precisely the Hermaphrodite/Rebis, the androgyne in whom the opposites are one. Jung explicitly read the alchemical union of opposites — high and low, good and evil, matter and spirit — as the symbolic expression of psychological wholeness, "united in a third point of synthesis." (Mysterium Coniunctionis — IAAP, Coniunctio — Pacifica Library Guide, Mysterium — Thalira)

This is the crucial turn — and it is where the twin-flame archetype becomes psychologically true even for the skeptic. The "other half" you seek may not be another person across the world but the disowned half of yourself: the shadow, the contrasexual figure, the rejected opposite. The beloved is, in this reading, a mirror — the most powerful catalyst for individuation precisely because they reflect back your own unintegrated material, your anima/animus made flesh. The intensity of "twin flame" love is the intensity of meeting your own unconscious. The reunion the soul craves is, at bottom, a reunion with itself. The coincidence of opposites is not between you and a stranger; it is the marriage of the two who were always one — within.

The full circle (speculative synthesis)

Now lay all five sections against each other and watch them collapse into a single figure:

  • Section I found the self to be a fragment — a constructed One pulled from a Many, a center mistaken for a thing.
  • Section II found the world to be a projection — and the boundary between self and world to be itself constructed.
  • Section III found, at the limit (ego dissolution, idealism), that the boundary can dissolve into a oneness that may be the actual ground.
  • Section IV found that the constructed, separate self, facing the void, must author or revolt or leap — must act from its aloneness.
  • Section V found that the deepest human intuition about that aloneness is that it is a cut — and that the longing it generates (eros, the coniunctio, the twin flame) is the fragment seeking the whole, which is finally the Self seeking itself.

The split soul of Aristophanes, the dissolving ego of the entropic brain, the empty-thrown self of Metzinger, the One ground of the idealist, the void-facing rebel of Camus — these are the same drama at five magnifications. As above, so below: the cosmic story (a primordial unity fragments into multiplicity and longs to return — the very plot of Kabbalah's tzimtzum and tikkun, of Plotinus's emanation and return, of the Big Bang and heat death) is replayed, exactly, in the micro-story of a single human self: born from an undifferentiated unity, cut into a separate construct, aching across its whole existence for a reunion it half-remembers — and discovering, if it is fortunate, that the beloved it has been chasing in the world is the face of its own lost wholeness, and that the One it fell out of was never anywhere but here, behind the empty throne, generating the entire room.

You have never once touched the world — because, in the end, there may be no gap to cross. The toucher and the touched, the seeker and the sought, the two halves of the egg, the self and its mirror: the suspicion that runs underneath all of this, from the Buddha to Tononi to Jung, is that the separation was the hallucination, and the union is what is real.

Sources